Yet a statement that Tertullian lets drop, as if accidentally, may teach us to beware of taking Valentinus’ supposed opinions on the nature of these hypostases or Persons of the Godhead more literally than he did himself. In his treatise against the Valentinians the “furious African barrister” is led away by the exigencies of his own rhetoric to tell us that there were some among them who looked upon all this elaborate description of the emanations of the Ogdoad as a figure of speech. All the aeons of the Ogdoad were according to them merely attributes or names of God. When, they said, God _thought_ of producing offspring, He thereby acquired the name of _Father_; and because his offspring was true, that of _Truth_; and because He wished to appear in human form, he was called _Man_; and because He assembled His attributes in His mind and selected from them those most proper for His purpose, they were called the _Church_; and as His only (or unique) Son was, as it were, uttered or sent forth to mankind, He was called the _Word_; and from His powers of salvation, _Life_; and so on[349]. As we have seen, Valentinus did not invent _de novo_ his conception of the Godhead, which bears besides evident marks of having been adopted with slight modification from that of Simon Magus and the Ophites. This statement of Tertullian gives us ground therefore for supposing that he may really have held the same views respecting the Divine Nature as the Catholic Church, merely giving an allegorical explanation of the earlier opinions to convince his hearers that the teaching of the Apostles was not so subversive of or inconsistent with the way of thinking of the ancient theologians and philosophers as some of them thought. Clement of Alexandria shows similar comprehensiveness when he said that in the Christian faith there are some mysteries more excellent than others—or, in other words, degrees in knowledge and grace[350]—, that the Hellenic philosophy fits him who studies it for the reception of the truth[351], and that the Christian should rejoice in the name of Gnostic, so long as he understands that the true Gnostic is he who imitates God as far as possible[352]. He even goes further, and himself uses the Gnostic method of personification of abstract qualities, as when he says that Reverence is the daughter of Law[353], and Simplicity, Innocence, Decorum, and Love, the daughters of Faith[354]. If Valentinus used similar metaphors, it by no means follows that he was thereby advocating the worship of many gods, which was the accusation most frequently brought against him by the Catholic Church. The same accusation might with equal propriety be made against John Bunyan on account of his Interpreter and his Mr Greatheart.